MEMO
March 29, 2003
TO:
FROM:
RE:
“Ethics across the Curriculum” task force
Don Schepers
Where to from here?
After listening to the various presentations, I am struck by two points: first, we are doing
much in our various disciplines already; and second, I am unclear as to the contribution
of an across the board approach, as indicated by Josh Mills’ proposal. I do think there
might well be a place for such a curriculum, but I am not yet convinced it is in our
undergrad or grad curriculum. My suggestion for pursuing his agenda follows my
comments on the curriculum initiative.
What follows is a suggestion, subject to much amendment. However, I would propose
this (or an amended version) for our May 1 roundtable.
CURRICULUM INITIATIVE
Three basic thrusts for ethics education (I will, for purposes of economy, call them
“domains”) are currently in use at Baruch. There is a good deal of discussion of ethics at
the individual level, per the philosophy, law, management, public administration, and
journalism presentations. Jim Weber’s presentation, developing some sort of “toolbox”
approach, would be in line with that particular educational effort. The accounting,
journalism and art presentations highlighted a second issue, ethics at the professional
level. I separate this from individual ethics, for the basic reason that the obligations of
professions entail training and specification above what an individual might understand
as personal ethics. Finally, there is ethics at the corporate or industry level.
Understanding ethics at this level entails a structural analysis. We would find this sort of
educational work in the art, accounting, management, and journalism presentations.
My suggestion, if you agree with what I’ve said thus far, is that we propose to the
curriculum committees a need for criteria development, rather than curriculum
development. I am not convinced we need more courses. In point of fact, we fight
already over the precious educational time students currently spend with us. We might
be better off enhancing what we have by being more conscious of how current courses
contribute to an understanding of ethics in the domains indicated. To that end, we would
direct departments to specify how individual courses contribute to the understanding of
ethics in each of those three domains. This is not to say that each ethics course would
address each domain. Rather, we would have at least some confidence that each domain
was being addressed in the overall educational curriculum. We would also be able
communicate inter-departmentally about how that was being done. In addition, instead of
a broad statement as at Zicklin, that new courses should have an ethics component, we
could seek to specify exactly what ethics components new courses do have.
The intent of this enhanced criteria and specification would not be to make sure everyone
does a little bit of everything, but rather so that, in the end, we can step back as a faculty
and understand how students are presented material on ethics in each of the three
domains. We would then be able to state at least for ourselves that any student
matriculating through Baruch (and in particular through Zicklin) that he/she had been
exposed to each domain, at least at some point in their career.
JOSH MILLS’ PROPOSAL
I would recommend the Mills proposal be used as a model not for undergrad or grad
curriculum, but rather as a model for an executive seminar series. I don’t know if we can
generate strong enthusiasm for such a series among alumni, but it seems to me this
proposal would work well as a model for such. This is not a covert attempt to put it on a
shelf. I know Dean Elliot is searching for some model for executive education beyond
the executive MBA. Perhaps the Mills approach could lead us to a “current events in
business” type of educational model. This would solve a need to speak to ethics issues at
this time, as well as provide a model malleable enough to deliver value into the future.
I put this forward as a starting point either for subsequent memoranda or agenda-setting
for the roundtable. I also recognize there are two presentations yet to be delivered, and
look forward to those. I invite amplification, correction, or disposal of this current
memo.